linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cisco tree with the vfs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190114225412.GD18707@fifo99.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:54:12 -0800
From:   Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cisco tree with the vfs tree

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:33:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:29:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the cisco tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   dcf8001d292b ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
> > 
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   2c070709ea75 ("This updates the x86 code to use the CONFIG_GENERIC_CMDLINE")
> > 
> > from the cisco tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index e493202bf265,ee109f490b22..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > @@@ -51,7 -51,7 +51,8 @@@
> >   #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> >   #include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
> >   #include <xen/xen.h>
> >  +#include <uapi/linux/mount.h>
> > + #include <linux/cmdline.h>
> >   
> >   #include <linux/errno.h>
> >   #include <linux/kernel.h>
> 
> This is now a conflict between the cicso tree and Linus' tree.

I did a rebase after your original made this. I'm not sure it's needed any
longer. However, I was planning to rebase my tree again on top of the latest
Linus tree. How would you like to proceed ?

Daniel